Sunday, December 25, 2016

This is a paper presented several
weeks ago by Herb Meyer at a Davos, Switzerland meeting which was attended by
most CEOs of major international corporations -- it is a very good summary of
today's key trends and a perspective one seldom sees

Meyer served
during the Reagan administration as special assistant to the Director of
Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National
Intelligence Council. In these positions, he managed production of the
U.S. National Intelligence Estimates and other top-secret projections for the
President and his national security advisers

Meyer is widely credited
with being the first senior U.S. Government official to forecast the Soviet
Union's collapse, for which he later was awarded the U.S. National Intelligence
Distinguished Service Medal, the intelligence community's highest
honour. Formerly an associate editor of FORTUNE, he is also the author of
several books.

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON
? A GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING by HERBERT MEYER FOUR MAJOR
TRANSFORMATIONS Currently, there are four major transformations
that are shaping political, economic and world events. These transformations
have profound implications for American business leaders and owners, our culture
and our way of life

1.
The War in IraqThere are three major monotheistic religions in
the world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and
Christianity reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars
found a way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the
center oflife, church and state became separate. Rule of law, idea of
economic liberty, individual rights, human rights - all these are defining point
of modern Western civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but
didn't take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and Christianity
found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that happened, it
unleashed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring of art,
literature and music the world has ever known.

Islam, which developed in
the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems around the world who are normal
people. However, there is a radical streak within Islam. When the radicals are
in charge, Islam attacks Western civilization. Islam first attacked Western
civilization in the 7th century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By
1683, the Moslems (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of
Vienna . It was in Vienna that the climatic battle between Islam and Western
civilization took place. The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went
backward. Interestingly, the date of that battle was September 11.Since then,
Islam has not found a way to reconcile with the modern world.

Today,
terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical Islam. To deal
with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things. First, units of our armed forces
are in 30 countries around the world hunting down terrorist groups and dealing
with them. This gets very little publicity. Second we are taking military action
in Afghanistan and Iraq . These actions are covered relentlessly by the media.
People can argue about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the
underlying strategy behind the war is to use our military to remove the radicals
from power and give the moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the
moderates will find a way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That's
what our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about.

The lesson
of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of people can kill a
large number of people very quickly. They can use airplanes, bombs, anthrax,
chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a first-rate intelligence service
(which the U.S. does not have), you can't stop every attack. That means our
tolerance for political horseplay has dropped to zero. No longer will we play
games with terrorists or weapons of mass destruction .Most of the
instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East . That's why we have
thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give the moderates a chance
to hold power they might find a way to reconcile Islam with the modern world. So
when looking at Afghanistan or Iraq , it's important to look for any signs
that they are modernizing .For example, women being brought into the
work force and colleges in. Afghanistan is good. The Iraqis stumbling toward a
constitution is good. People can argue about what the U.S. is doing and how
we're doing it, but anything that suggests Islam is finding its way forward is
good.

2. The Emergence of ChinaIn the last 20
years, China has moved 250 million people from the farms and villages into the
cities. Their plan is to move another 300 million in the next 20 years. When you
put that many people into the cities, you have to find work for them. That's
why China is addicted to manufacturing; they have to put all the relocated
people to work. When we decide to manufacture something in the U.S. , it's
based on market needs and the opportunity to make a profit. In China , they make
the decision because they want the jobs, which is a very different
calculation

While China is addicted to manufacturing, Americans are
addicted to low prices. As a result, a unique kind of economic codependency has
developed between the two countries. If we ever stop buying from China , they
will explode politically. If China stops selling to us, our economy will take
a huge hit because prices will jump. We are subsidizing their economic
development; they are subsidizing our economic growth. Because of their huge
growth in manufacturing, China is hungry for raw materials, which drive prices
up worldwide. China is also thirsty for oil, which is one reason oil is now at
$100 a barrel. By 2020, China will produce more cars than the U.S. China is
also buying its way into the oil infrastructure around the world. They are doing
it in the open market and paying fair market prices, but millions of barrels of
oil that would have gone to the U.S. are now going to China . China 's quest
to assure it has the oil it needs to fuel its economy is a major factor in world
politics and economics .We have our Navy fleets protecting the sea
lines, specifically the ability to get the tankers through. It won't be long
before the Chinese have an aircraft carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf as
well. The question is, will their aircraft carrier be pointing in the same
direction as ours or against us?

3. Shifting Demographics of
Western CivilizationMost countries in the Western world have
stopped breeding. For a civilization obsessed with sex, this is remarkable.
Maintaining a steady population requires a birth rate of 2.1. In Western Europe
, the birth rate currently stands at 1.5, or 30 percent below replacement. In 30
year there will be 70 to 80 million fewer Europeans than there are today. The
current birth rate in Germany is 1.3. Italy and Spain are even lower at 1.2.
At that rate, the working age population declines by 30 percent in 20 years,
which has a huge impact on the economy. When you don't have young workers to
replace the older ones, you have to import them .The European countries
are currently importing Moslems. Today, the Moslems comprise 10 percent of
France and Germany , and the percentage is rising rapidly because they have
higher birthrates. However, the Moslem populations are not being integrated into
the cultures of their host countries, which is a political catastrophe. One
reason Germany and France don't support the Iraq war is they fear their
Moslem populations will explode on them. By 2020, more than half of all births
in the Netherlands will be non-European. The huge design flaw in the postmodern
secular state is that you need a traditional religious society birth rate to
sustain it. The Europeans simply don't wish to have children, so they are
dying. In Japan , the birthrate is 1.3. As a result, Japan will lose up to 60
million people over the next 30 years. Because Japan has a very different
society than Europe , they refuse to import workers. Instead, they are just
shutting down. Japan has already closed 2,000 schools, and is closing them down
at the rate of 300 per year. Japan is also aging very rapidly. By 2020, one
out of every five Japanese will be at least 70 years old. Nobody has any idea
about how to run an economy with those demographics .Europe and Japan ,
which comprise two of the world's major economic engines aren't merely in
recession they're shutting down. This will have a huge impact on the world
economy, and it is already beginning to happen. Why are the birthrates so low?
There is a direct correlation between abandonment of traditional religious
society and a drop in birth rate, and Christianity in Europe is becoming
irrelevant. The second reason is economic. When the birth rate drops below
replacement, the population ages. With fewer working people to support more
retired people, it puts a crushing tax burden on the smaller group of working
age people. As a result, young people delay marriage and having a family. Once
this trend starts, the downward spiral only gets worse. These countries have
abandoned all the traditions they formerly held in regard to having families and
raising children.

The U.S. birth rate is 2.0, just below replacement.
We have an increase in population because of immigration. When broken down by
ethnicity, the Anglo birth rate is 1.6 (same as France ) while the Hispanic
birth rate is 2.7. In the U.S. , the baby boomers are starting to retire in
massive numbers. This will push the elder dependency ratio from 19 to 38 over
the next 10 to 15 years. This is not as bad as Europe , but still represents the
same kind of trend .Western civilization seems to have forgotten what
every primitive society understands -- you need kids to have a healthy society.
Children are huge consumers. Then they grow up to become taxpayers. That's how a
society works, but the postmodern secular state seems to have forgotten that. If
U.S. birth rates of the past 20 to 30 years had been the same as post-World War
II, there would be no Social Security or Medicare problems .The world's
most effective birth control device is money. As society creates a middle class
and women move into the workforce, birth rates drop. Having large families is
incompatible with middle class living. The quickest way to drop the birth rate
is through rapid economic development After World War II, the U.S. instituted
a $600 tax credit per child. The idea was to enable mom and dad to have four
children without being troubled by taxes. This led to a baby boom of 22 million
kids, which was a huge consumer market. That turned into a huge tax base.
However, to match that incentive in today's dollars would cost $12,000 per child
.China and India do not have declining populations. However, in both
countries, there is a preference for boys over girls, and we now have the
technology to know which is which before they are born. In China and India ,
families are aborting the girls. As a result, in each of these countries there
are 70 million boys growing up who will never find wives. When left alone,
nature produces 103 boys for every 100 girls. In some provinces, however, the
ratio is 128 boys to every 100 girls.

The birth rate in Russia is so
low that by 2050 their population will be smaller than that of Yemen.
Russia has one-sixth of the earth's land surface and much of its oil. You can't
control that much area with such a small population. Immediately to the south,
you have China with 70 million unmarried men who are a real potential
nightmare scenario for Russia .

4. Restructuring of American
BusinessThe fourth major transformation involves a fundamental
restructuring of American business. Today's business environment is very complex
and competitive. To succeed, you have to be the best, which means having the
highest quality and lowest cost. Whatever your price point, you must have the
best quality and lowest price. To be the best, you have to concentrate on one
thing. You can't be all things to all people and be the best.

A
generation ago, IBM used to make every part of their computer. Now Intel makes
the chips, Microsoft makes the software, and someone else makes the modems, hard
drives, monitors, etc. IBM even out sources their call center.

Because
IBM has all these companies supplying goods and services cheaper and better than
they could do it themselves, they can make a better computer at a lower cost.
This is called a fracturing of business. When one company can make a better
product by relying on others to perform functions the business used to do
itself, it creates a complex pyramid of companies that serve and support each
other. This fracturing of American business is now in its second
generation. The companies who supply IBM are now doing the same thing -
outsourcing many of their core services and production process. As a result,
they can make cheaper, better products. Over time, this pyramid continues to get
bigger and bigger. Just when you think it can't fracture again, it does.

Even very small businesses can have a large pyramid of corporate
entities that perform many of its important functions. One aspect of this trend
is that companies end up with fewer employees and more independent contractors.
This trend has also created two new words in business, integrator and
complementor. At the top of the pyramid, IBM is the integrator. As you go down
the pyramid, Microsoft, Intel and the other companies that support IBM are the
complementors. However, each of the complementors is itself an integrator for
the complementors underneath it.

This has several implications, the
first of which is that we are now getting false readings on the economy. People
who used to be employees are now independent contractors launching their own
businesses. There are many people working whose work is not listed as a job. As
a result, the economy is perking along better than the numbers are telling us.
Outsourcing also confused the numbers. Suppose a company like General
Motors decides to outsource all its employee cafeteria functions to Marriott
(which it did). It lays off hundreds of cafeteria workers, who then get hired
right back by Marriott. The only thing that has changed is that these people
work for Marriott rather than GM. Yet, the media headlines will scream that
America has lost more manufacturing jobs.

All that really happened is
that these workers are now reclassified as service workers. So the old way of
counting jobs contributes to false economic readings. As yet, we haven't figured
out how to make the numbers catch up with the changing realities of the business
world. Another implication of this massive restructuring is that because
companies are getting rid of units and people that used to work for them, the
entity is smaller. As the companies get smaller and more efficient, revenues are
going down but profits are going up. As a result, the old notion that revenues
are up and we're doing great isn't always the case anymore. Companies are
getting smaller but are becoming more efficient and profitable in the process.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FOUR TRANSFORMATIONS
1. The War in Iraq
In some ways, the war is going very well. Afghanistan and
Iraq have the beginnings of a modern government, which is a huge step forward.
The Saudis are starting to talk about some good things, while Egypt and
Lebanon are beginning to move in a good direction. A series of revolutions have
taken place in countries like Ukraine and Georgia . There will be more
of these revolutions for an interesting reason. In every revolution, there comes
a point where the dictator turns to the general and says, Fire into the crowd.
If the general fires into the crowd, it stops the revolution. If the general
says No, the revolution continues. Increasingly, the generals are saying No
because their kids are in the crowd.

Thanks to TV and the Internet, the
average 18-year old outside the U.S. is very savvy about what is going on in
the world, especially in terms of popular culture. There is a huge global
consciousness, and young people around the world want to be a part of it. It is
increasingly apparent to them that the miserable government where they live is
the only thing standing in their way. More and more, it is the well-educated
kids, the children of the generals and the elite, who are leading the
revolutions.

At the same time, not all is well with the war. The level
of violence in Iraq is much worse and doesn't appear to be improving. It's
possible that we're asking too much of Islam all at one time. We're trying to
jolt them from the 7th century to the 21st century all at once, which may be
furtherthan they can go. They might make it and they might not. Nobody knows
for sure. The point is, we don't know how the war will turn out. Anyone who says
they know is just guessing.The real place to watch is Iran . If they
actually obtain nuclear weapons it will be a terrible situation. There are two
ways to deal with it. The first is a military strike, which will be very
difficult. The Iranians have dispersed their nuclear development facilities and
put them underground. The U.S. has nuclear weapons that can go under the earth
and take out those facilities, but we don't want to do that.

The other
way is to separate the radical mullahs from the government, which is the most
likely course of action. Seventy percent of the Iranian population is under 30.
They are Moslem but not Arab. They are mostly pro-Western. Many experts think
the U.S. should have dealt with Iran before going to war with Iraq . The problem
isn't so much the weapons; it's the people who control them. If Iran has a
moderate government, the weapons become less of a concern.

We don't know
if we will win the war in Iraq . We could lose or win. What we're looking for
is any indicator that Islam is moving into the 21st century and stabilizing,
2. ChinaIt may be that
pushing 500 million people from farms and villages into cities is too much too
soon. Although it gets almost no publicity, China is experiencing hundreds of
demonstrations around the country, which is unprecedented. These are not
students in Tiananmen Square . These are average citizens who are angry with the
government for building chemical plants and polluting the water they drink and
the air they breathe.

The Chinese are a smart and industrious people.
They may be able to pull it off and become a very successful economic and
military superpower. If so, we will have to learn to live with it. If they want
to share the responsibility of keeping the world's oil lanes open, that's a good
thing. They currently have eight new nuclear electric power generators under way
and 45 on the books to build. Soon, they will leave the U.S. way behind in
their ability to generate nuclear power. What can go wrong with China ?
For one, you can't move 550 million people into the cities without major
problems. Two China really wants Taiwan , not so much for economic reasons,
they just want it. The Chinese know that their system of communism can't survive
much longer in the 21st century. The last thing they want to do before they
morph into some sort of more capitalistic government is to take over Taiwan .
We may wake up one morning and find they have launched an attack on Taiwan . If
so, it will be a mess, both economically and militarily. The U.S has committed
to the military defense of Taiwan . If China attacks Taiwan , will we really go
to war against them? If the Chinese generals believe the answer is no, they may
attack. If we don't defend Taiwan , every treaty the U.S. has will be worthless.
Hopefully, China won't do anything stupid.
3. DemographicsEurope
and Japan are dying because their populations are aging and shrinking. These
trends can be reversed if the young people start breeding. However, the birth
rates in these areas are so low it will take two generations to turn things
around. No economic model exists that permits 50 years to turn things around.
Some countries are beginning to offer incentives for people to have bigger
families. For example, Italy is offering tax breaks for having children.
However, it's a lifestyle issue versus a tiny amount of money. Europeans aren't
willing to give up their comfortable lifestyles in order to have more children.

In general, everyone in Europe just wants it to last a while longer
Europeans have a real talent for living. They don't want to work very hard. The
average European worker gets 400 more hours of vacation time per year than
Americans. They don't want to work and they don't want to make any of the
changes needed to revive their economies. The summer after 9/11, France lost
15,000 people in a heat wave. In August, the country basically shuts down when
everyone goes on vacation. That year, a severe heat wave struck and 15,000
elderly people living in nursing homes and hospitals died. Their children didn't
even leave the beaches to come back and take care of the bodies. Institutions
had to scramble to find enough refrigeration units to hold the bodies until
people came to claim them. This loss of life was five times bigger than 9/11 in
America , yet it didn't trigger any change in French society.

When birth
rates are so low, it creates a tremendous tax burden on the young. Under those
circumstances, keeping mom and dad alive is not an attractive option. That's why
euthanasia is becoming so popular in most European countries. The only country
that doesn't permit (and even encourage) euthanasia is Germany , because of all
the baggage from World War II.

The European economy is beginning to
fracture. Countries like Italy are starting to talk about pulling out of the
European Union because it is killing them. When things get bad economically in
Europe , they tend to get very nasty politically. The canary in the mine is
anti-Semitism. When it goes up, it means trouble is coming. Current levels of
anti-Semitism are higher than ever. Germany won't launch another war, but
Europe will likely get shabbier, more dangerous and less pleasant to live in.
Japan has a birth rate of 1.3 and has no intention of bringing in immigrants.
By 2020, one out of every five Japanese will be 70 years old. Property values
in Japan have dropped every year for the past 14 years. The country is simply
shutting down. In the U.S. we also have an aging population. Boomers are
starting to retire at a massive rate. These retirements will have several major
impacts:

Possible massive sell-off of large, four-bedroom houses and a
movement to condos an enormous drain on the treasury. Boomers vote, and they
want their benefits, even if it means putting a crushing tax burden on their
kids to get them. Social Security will be a huge problem. As this generation
ages, it will start to drain the system. We are the only country in the world
where there are no age limits on medical procedures.

An enormous drain
on the health care system, this will also increase the tax burden on the young,
which will cause them to delay marriage and having families, which will drive
down the birth rate even further. Although scary, these demographics also
present enormous opportunities for products and services tailored to aging
populations. There will be a tremendous demand for caring for older people,
especially those who don't need nursing homes but need some level of care. Some
people will have a business where they take care of three or four people in
their homes. The demand for that type of service and for products to physically
care for aging people will be huge. Make sure the demographics of your
business are attuned to where the action is. For example, you don't want to be a
baby food company in Europe or Japan . Demographics are much underrated as an
indicator of where the opportunities are. Businesses need customers. Go where
the customers are.

4.
Restructuring of American BusinessThe restructuring of American
business means we are coming to the end of the age of the employer and employee.
With all this fracturing of businesses into different and smaller units,
employers can't guarantee jobs anymore because they don't know what their
companies will look like next year. Everyone is on their way to becoming an
independent contractor.

The new workforce contract will be:
Show up at the office five days a week and do what I want you to do, but you
handle your own insurance, benefits, health care and everything else. Husbands
and wives are becoming economic units. They take different jobs and work
different shifts depending on where they are in their careers and families. They
make tradeoffs to put together a compensation package to take care of the
family.

This used to happen only with highly educated professionals with
high incomes. Now it is happening at the level of the factory floor worker.
Couples at all levels are designing their compensation packages based on their
individual needs. The only way this can work is if everything is portable and
flexible, which requires a huge shift in the American economy.

The U.S.
is in the process of building the world's first 21st century model economy. The
only other countries doing this are U.K. and Australia . The model is fast,
flexible, highly productive and unstable in that it is always fracturing and
re-fracturing. This will increase the economic gap between the U.S. and
everybody else, especially Europe and Japan .

At the same time, the
military gap is increasing. Other than China , we are the only country that is
continuing to put money into their military. Plus, we are the only military
getting on-the-ground military experience through our war in Iraq . We know
which high-tech weapons are working and which ones aren't. There is almost no
one who can take us on economically or militarily.

There has never been
a superpower in this position before. On the one hand, this makes the U.S. a
magnet for bright and ambitious people. It also makes us a target. We are
becoming one of the last holdouts of the traditional Judeo-Christian culture.
There is no better place in the world to be in business and raise children
.The U.S. is by far the best place to have an idea, form a business
and put it into the marketplace. We take it for granted, but it isn't as
available in other countries of the world. Ultimately, it's an issue of
culture. The only people who can hurt us are ourselves, by losing our culture.
If we give up our Judeo-Christian culture, we become just like the Europeans.
The culture war is the whole ball game. If we lose it, there isn't another
America to pull us out.­­­­­­­­­­­

Monday, December 12, 2016

A LOT OF SELF RIGHTEOUS POMPOUS ASSES ARE USING THE 'FAITHLESS ELECTOR" THEORY TO ENCOURAGE ELECTORS OF A STATE WHO ARE BOUND TO VOTE FOR THE WINNER OF THAT STATE'S POPULAR VOTE TO SWITCH BASED ON THEIR CONSCIENCE!

Here is why they are dead wrong! Lets starts at the very beginning and trace the reason why they claim this right of conscience! Their claim is that "Alexander Hamilton writing in the Federalist 68 gave them the right to vote based on their conscience"

That is patently false.The Federalist Papers

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays
arguing in support of the United States
Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay were the authors behind
the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively
under the name of Publius.

The Federalist Papers :

Seventy-seven of the essays were published as a
series in The Independent Journal, The New York
Packet, and The Daily Advertiser between October
of 1787 and August 1788. They weren't originally
known as the "Federalist Papers," but just "The
Federalist." The final 8 were added in after.

Alexander Hamilton,

At the time of publication, the authorship of the
articles was a closely guarded secret. It wasn't until
Hamilton's death in 1804 that a list crediting him
as one of the authors became public. It claimed
fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton. Many
of these would be disputed by Madison later on,
who had actually written a few of the articles
attributed to Hamilton.Once the Federal Convention sent the Constitution to the Confederation Congress in
1787, the document became the target of criticism from its opponents. Hamilton, a firm
believer in the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the
series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the
objections which shall have made their appearance, that may
seem to have any claim to your attention."

THE FAITHLESS ELECTOR ARGUMENT RELIES ON FEDERALIST 68 which is not a part of the CONSTITUTION AT ALL!

Federalist 68 was written by these 3 men including Hamilton but under a secret name "Publius".

In Federalist 68 they wrote this.

To the People of the State of New York:

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States
is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has
escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark
of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has
appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the
President is pretty well guarded.1
I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the
manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an
eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished
for. It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the
choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to
any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special
purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as
possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded
in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency
in the administration of the government as the President of the United
States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the
system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this
mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of
electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any
extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was
himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the
electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in
which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose
them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from
them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in
one place. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle
should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly
adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected
to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from
the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our
councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature
of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention
have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident
and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the
President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be
tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have
referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of
America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and
sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from
eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be
suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator,
representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under
the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without
corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election
will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their
transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice
of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the
conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so
considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would
it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be
over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which
though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a
nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive
should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the
people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty
to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration
of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by
making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives,
deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important
choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the
convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a
number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and
representatives of such State in the national government, who shall
assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the
national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of
the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of
the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might
be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is
provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall
select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of
votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the
office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of
President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an
eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for
low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to
elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require
other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the
esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a
portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate
for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will
not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of
seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and
virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the
Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the
executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill
administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of
the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which
is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the
true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a
good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the
President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to
the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in
respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has
been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been
alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the
Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that
description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the
convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the
possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that
the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator
of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President
of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which
he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is,
that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the
President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which
recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great
if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is
remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which
is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a
Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the
Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in
casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to
exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

SIGNED: PUBLIUS.

OK GET IT ? IT WAS WRITTEN TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK AS A GUIDE. NOT AS STATUTE OR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Points of fact about the timeline of when the Constitution was written signed ratified and signed by all the States of the Union:

The Constitution of the United States of America is signed by 38 of
41 delegates present at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention
in Philadelphia. Supporters of the document waged a hard-won battle to
win ratification by the necessary nine out of 13 U.S. states.The Articles of Confederation, ratified several months before the
British surrender at Yorktown in 1781, provided for a loose
confederation of U.S. states, which were sovereign in most of their
affairs. On paper, Congress–the central authority–had the power to
govern foreign affairs, conduct war, and regulate currency, but in
practice these powers were sharply limited because Congress was given no
authority to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops. By
1786, it was apparent that the Union would soon break up if the
Articles of Confederation were not amended or replaced. Five states met
in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the issue, and all the states were
invited to send delegates to a new constitutional convention to be held
in Philadelphia.On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode
Island convened at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House for the
Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as
Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of
Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The
assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of
Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government.
Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was
elected convention president.During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal
organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and
balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state
representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional
legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The
problem was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a
bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower
house (House of Representatives) and equal representation of the states
in the upper house (Senate).On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by
Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified
by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five
states–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and
Connecticut–ratified it in quick succession. However, other states,
especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve
undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of
basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the
press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which
Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with
the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The
Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by
Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the
ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that
government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In
June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.

OK SO FEDERALIST 68 IS NOT INCORPORATED IN ANY FORM INTO THE CONSTITUTION.Now lets go to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution:States Rights!Defenders of states'rightswereconcernedthat a powerful,consolidatednationalgovernmentwouldrunroughshodoverthestates.Withratification of theConstitution in doubt,theFramerspromised to addprotectionforthestates.Accordingly,theTenth Amendmentwasadded to theConstitution as part of theBill of Rights. Theamendmentstipulatesthat"powersnotdelegated to theUnitedStates by theConstitution,norprohibited by it to theStates,arereserved to theStatesrespectively, or to thepeople."

Thisamendmentbecametheconstitutionalfoundationforthosewhowish to promotetherightsandpowers of thestatesvis-à-visthefederalgovernment.So are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law
that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular
vote in their states. Many states, however, require Electors to cast
their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to
political parties. Both major parties decide on who the electors will be according to their rules and bye laws. The Candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that State gets to have their party's Electors vote for their Candidate in the Electoral College vote which occurs a few weeks after the Elections. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not
require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and
therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote
for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called
"faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for
casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The
Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether
pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced
under the Constitution.

Who selects the Electors?Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the
political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors
sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the
voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their
ballots for President. The first part of the process is controlled by the
political parties in each state and varies from state to state.
Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at
their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the
party's central committee. This happens in each state for each party by
whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have
for the process. This first part of the process results in each
Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential
Electors. Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize
their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state
elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a
personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential
candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential
Electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each state.) The second part of the process happens on Election
Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential
candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state's
Electors. The potential Electors' names may or may not appear on the
ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on
election procedures and ballot formats in each state. The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential Electors are
appointed as the state's Electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which
have proportional distribution of the Electors. In Nebraska and Maine,
the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each
congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a
different candidate) receives one Elector. This system permits the
Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one
candidate.

SO If an Elector decides to use the Hamilton argument and try to become a "Faithless Elector" he can be removed from being an elector by the Governor of the State in most cases and replaced by a loyal elector. This hogwash argument that they have the right to "Vote their conscience" based on the writings of Federalist 68 is bogus, because Hamilton did not even expose the fact that he was the man behind Publius till after his death! So if anything it was a con to convince the People of New York and no one else. Only the people of New York got to see Federalist 68 before the Constitution was ratified and it was not included in the Constitution or any of the following Amendments.

There is another rather pointed argument that should be made. Cherry picking your favorite Federalist essay and ignoring all teh rest is rather hypocritical.

Why not also apply Federalist 54 right? It asks that Slaves be counted as 3/5th Human. Same Hamilton writing as Publius to the People of New York State.The Federalist Papers : No. 54 (again to the People of New York)

To the People of the State of New York:THE next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives
relates to the appointment of its members to the several States which is
to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes. It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not
to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to
represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule
for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested;
though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same
principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the
personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal
connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of
wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary
cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule
as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it
is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and
had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have
found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow,
from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of
slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves
ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are
considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be
comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and
to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of
persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full
force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be
offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine,'' might one
of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more
immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and
we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our
slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as
property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the
case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by
our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as
property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in
being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at
all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by
the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from
the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall
under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the
other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all
others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being
punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave
is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not
as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere
article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on
the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of
persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the
character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it
will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is
only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into
subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation
of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the
rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be
refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.
"This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all
sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they
are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have
been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the
list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be
calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of
contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that
the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their
slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but
refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be
conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who
reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as
property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend,
that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to
consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of
property, than the very laws of which they complain? "It may be
replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of
representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote
themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle,
then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of
representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this
respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the
proper guide. "This objection is repelled by a single abservation. It is
a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the
aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to
be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of
inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State
is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself
may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend
are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the
difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of
this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the
census by which the federal Constitution apportions the
representatives. In this point of view the Southern States might retort
the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the
convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of
particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that
the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census
according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants,
who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights
of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived
by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal
moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be
considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising
expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as
inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free
inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the
MAN. !!!! "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article
of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have
hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons
only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea? Government is
instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons,
of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be
considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.
Upon this principle it is, that in several of the States, and
particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is
intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is
accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested
in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy
does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same
hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be
paid to property in the choice of those hands. "For another reason, the
votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State,
ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States.
States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other, arising
from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent
citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the
respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation
very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice;
and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are
conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such
influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State
in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single
representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the
larger and richer States possess any other advantage in the federal
legislature, over the representatives of other States, than what may
result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their
superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it
ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from
the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United
Netherlands, and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter, the
efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and
voluntary resolutions of the states composing the union. Hence the
states, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an
unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these
subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution,
the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of
the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes
in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether
proceeding from a larger or smaller State, or a State more or less
wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy: in the same
manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the
representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a
precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in
the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of
the individual representative, rather than from any regard to the extent
of the district from which he comes. ''Such is the reasoning which an
advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and
although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on
the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of
representation which the convention have established. In one respect,
the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation
will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be
obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable
degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it
is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as
possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their
share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would
have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to
decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would
prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have
opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and
produce the requisite impartiality. PUBLIUS. So In Conclusion:The Faithless Elector sham is bogus because they use the argument that 'Hamiltion" gave them the right to vote their conscience. No, actually Publius wrote to the People of New York State.. and not to all the other States that you might be an Elector from.

Also It was never put into the Constitution so it is not a Federal option.

Electors as shown above are selected by Parties in the State and governed by State Rights. If the State requires their fealty to the winning Candidate although the Supreme Court has not ruled, a State Court must rule immediately and remove this elector. OK SO some electors have done it before and the argument is that they can do it again. NOT IF THEIR STATE REQUIRES THEM TO VOTE ACCORDING TO THEIR AFFIDAVIT/CONTRACT.

If you sign an agreement and you break the agreement I believe the "aggrieved" Candidate has the right to sue the ELECTOR.

I URGE DONALD TRUMP AND THE RNC TO SUE THEM FOR DAMAGES IMMEDIATELY! HE INVESTED TIME AND MONEY TO WIN A STATE!Truth be told I think that too many people have been watching those clowns on Broadway prance around in that play "Hamilton" and have not understood the real facts of the matter!

ABOUT THIS BLOG

I AM A FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE
CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WINGER UNDERGROUND... IN EXILE IN AMERICA !
I AM AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE:
Ferocious = (fə-rō'shəs) “Marked by unrelenting intensity; to the extreme”
Conservative = (kən-sûr'və-tĭz'əm) “A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions and distrust of government activism”
My page is a place for Unrelenting Ferocious Activist Conservatives across our country to gather and discuss and plan our next moves. I am tired of sitting around and playing “nice” while the Progressive Liberals have spent the last 50 years attacking and denigrating our values and our beliefs while our side sits around and tries real hard to be accommodating and “Nice”! (Political Correctness!) NO MORE!!
AS AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVES. I WILL ATTACK BACK!